The 3NR Podcast Rotating Header Image

Season 2, Episode 11 — 2011-05-14

The 40th Tournament of Champions is in the books and this episode begins with a lengthy discussion of it: Could the schedule be improved? Was the “entourage rule” effective? How could the judging pool for late elimination rounds be strengthened? How does the class of 2011 stack up against its predecessors? Consider this the official 3NR TOC Debriefing. The second half of the episode shifts to a discussion of how to prepare for summer institutes. What can students do between now and then to improve as a debater? How can a debater make a good impression on his or her lab leader? Several tips (and warnings) are provided.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 10 — 2011-05-07

Recorded at the end of April (Apologies for the delay. – ed.), the latest episode of the podcast features the return of Malcolm Gordon (his previous appearances include s01e03, s01e12, and s01e13). Several topics are covered during this hour-long discussion: 

  1. Topicality: after judging two T debates together at the National Debate Tournament (round eight between Wake Forest HM and Kansas KP and the semifinals between Northwestern FS and Michigan LZ), Malcolm and Scott discuss trends in topicality debating, suggest strategies for improving topicality preparation and execution, and wonder about the way that topicality debates are commonly judged.

  2. Conditionality: Malcolm and Scott discuss the way that conditionality is debated and judged.

  3. Impact Turns: is the era of the impact turn over? Scott thinks so, and he and Malcolm explain why that’s a shame—and how to improve impact comparisons.

  4. Framework: Malcolm’s opus answering Scott’s defense of framework arguments is not yet complete, but he gives listeners a sneak preview of what they have to look forward to.

In this episode: Malcolm Gordon, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 9 — 2011-04-21

Scott Phillips and James Herndon are back for part two of their discussion of TOC preparation. This time, the goal is to help students prepare to debate on the negative. How can you prepare topicality arguments to protect yourself against new cases? How does the politics disadvantage fit into your preparation? What counterplans should you have ready to go? These and other questions are discussed by two of the coaches of this year’s Copeland Award winning team from Emory University.

In this episode: James Herndon, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 8 — 2011-04-15

Preparing for the season-ending tournaments? Heading to Lexington in a few weeks for the TOC? In this episode of the podcast, Scott Phillips and James Herndon discuss affirmative preparation and strategy. When should you read a new case? What makes a new case strategic? How should you write your plan? These questions and more are answered in part one of a two-part series about the TOC.

In this episode: James Herndon, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 7 — 2011-01-27

The first episode of the calendar year that features the whole 3NR crew, this episode of The 3NR Podcast focuses entirely on reader/listener-submitted questions. Topics covered include email evidence, the way that judges should (and do) balance explanation versus evidence, debating the case against COIN affirmatives, and more. We didn’t get to everything, so we will dedicate another future episode to the remaining questions we’ve received from our listeners. If you have something you’d like us to discuss, please let us know.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 6 — 2011-01-24

The 3NR Podcast returns with a midseason premier featuring special guests James Herndon (Director of Debate Programs and Debate Coach at Emory University) and John Turner (M.A. candidate in Communication and Assistant Debate Coach at the University of Georgia). Along with Scott Phillips, James and John discuss affirmative approaches to debating critiques. The discussion centers around four tips:

  1. In order to beat the critique, you must first have the vocabulary of the critique.
  2. It is important for 2ARs to have a template for how to beat the critique.
  3. Don’t shift your focus to the things the negative said: stay on point.
  4. Know your answers to the stock critique shenanigans.

In this episode: James Herndon, Scott Phillips, John Turner

Season 2, Episode 5 — 2010-12-01

As the first semester draws to a close, this episode of The 3NR Podcast assesses the evolution of this year’s topic and provides practical advice for students as they prepare for the rest of the season. The news is chock full of stories that are relevant to debates about U.S. military presence: the Lisbon NATO Summit, the North Korean attack on South Korea, and the Wikileaks disclosure are just the tip of the iceberg. What do these recent developments—and more, including the state of President Obama’s agenda in the new, split Congress—mean for the topic? How can students maximize the benefits of their Winter Break preparation? The discussion weaves into several other topics including the wiki, disclosure norms, and the “Warm Room” tabulation concept and concludes with (not so) rapid-fire responses to questions submitted by listeners.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 4 — 2010-11-05

Chock full of practical advice for debaters, this episode of the podcast covers backflowing, 1AR strategy, affirmative preparation, and paperless efficiency and includes a discussion of whether judges should access evidence during debates. Are you having trouble debating on the affirmative? Does the 1AR give you nightmares? Are you frustrated that your pre-tournament preparation isn’t producing more wins? This podcast aims to provide students with both an overall understanding of affirmative strategy as well as a series of tips that can be implemented immediately to help you win more debates.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 3 — 2010-10-13

This special edition of The 3NR Podcast features a discussion between Scott Phillips, Maggie Berthiaume, and James Herndon, the Senior Program Associate and Debate Coach at Emory University in Atlanta. One of the judges of the final round of this past season’s Tournament of Champions, James was previously a highly-successful coach at Chattahoochee High School where he qualified 18 teams for the TOC over a four-year period. While at Emory he has coached a Copeland Award winning team and several elimination round qualifiers at the National Debate Tournament. The discussion focuses on politics disadvantages—especially the Midterms DA—and will be invaluable for students competing at tournaments before the November elections.

In This Podcast: Maggie Berthiaume, James Herndon, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 2 — 2010-10-13

This episode focuses on several topics of interest to debaters including preparation techniques, case debating, analytical arguments, and strategies for improvement. In particular, tips are provided to “striving” debaters—those that are making the transition to the varsity level or attempting to break through to the elimination rounds for the first time—to help them overcome the hurdles preventing them from reaching their goals.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips

Season 2, Episode 1 — 2010-09-30

The season two premiere features discussion of several topics including the Greenhill tournament (including reaction to the direction of the topic, affirmative case selection, topicality, and the deterrence disadvantage), impact assessment, paperless debate and flowing, and emerging paperless debating norms.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips

Season 1, Episode 16 — 2010-06-09

In another Special Edition of the podcast, Bill discusses paperless debating with Alex Gulakov of the University of Texas and Ellis Allen and Daniel Taylor of the Westminster Schools.

In this episode: Ellis Allen, Bill Batterman, Alex Gulakov, Daniel Taylor.

Season 1, Episode 15 — 2010-04-18

In a Special Edition of the podcast, Bill and Roy discuss preparation and strategy with Will Repko and Jonathan Paul.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Jonathan Paul, Will Repko.

Season 1, Episode 14 — 2010-04-06

This episode centered around questions from readers and includes  the following topics:

  • Woodward Tournament Review: Disclosure Award, Division Eligibility, Scott’s Absence
  • Announcement: Will Repko Podcast at the NDCA
  • Next Year’s Topic: What generic counterplans will be popular? What generic critiques will be popular?
  • Roy’s Topic Idea: Forcible regime change in Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba
  • More Tabulation Discussion: Should undefeated teams that are due the same side debate each other in round 6? Should the Woodward Tournament adopt the Challenge format for elimination rounds? Other tweaks: high-high rounds, MBA system (opponent wins + high-low points)
  • Return To The Game: What would Scott/Roy do differently if they came back and debated again?
  • Today’s Debaters: What do they do better and worse than previous generations?
  • Preparation For The TOC: Risk Aversion, Strategies, Flexibility, etc.
  • K Preparation For Dummies: Preparing to go for a K if you’re a “policy” debater (and vice versa)
  • Judge Adaptation: Do people judge differently at the TOC? Should they?

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips.

Season 1, Episode 13 — 2010-04-05

In a follow-up to episode 12, Malcolm Gordon and Scott Phillips answer reader questions about the critique. Topics include how to impact turn a kritik effectively- dos and don’ts, he key to impact turn strategies like de-development, why is the Obama good DA so dominant and the Obama bad disad almost non-existent?, how you should do impact analysis for K affs, how Malcolm doesn’t really understand the point of ethics arguments, and scholarship opportunities at UMKC.

In this episode: Malcolm Gordon, Scott Phillips.

Season 1, Episode 12 — 2010-03-09

In the second Malgorcast, Malcolm Gordon and Scott Phillips discuss how to debate the critique (and whether to debate it like a disadvantage). Topics include “how we are in fact real Americans who fight for the rights of everyone,” “how debating the K like a DA is brilliant… only the exact opposite,” “why is everyone else not as smart as us?,” “your big words (like “link”) would work in front of me, except i’m way smarter than you,” and “when is Framework a necessary argument? Answer- When we tell you it is!.”

In this episode: Malcolm Gordon, Scott Phillips.

Season 1, Episode 11 — 2010-03-03

Topics discussed include:

  • The Spirit of Disclosure Award: Should analytical arguments be disclosed? What level of disclosure should be expected? What makes for an effective wiki page? Woodward PP: worst wiki page in the country?
  • Flowing: A lost art?
  • Should The 3NR create other awards recognizing effective research, innovative strategies, etc.?
  • Speaker Points: Are they too high? Were the debaters “back in the day” better than those of today? Is Roy a hopeless curmudgeon or does he have a point? Should we transition to a 100-point or 30/.1 scale?
  • Why do 2N/1A’s receive higher points than 1N/2A’s? Should they?
  • Low Point Wins: Should they be banned? Scott says yes. Is he right, or are there situations where low point wins make sense?
  • Double Losses: Should they be allowed? Scott says yes—we discuss this idea and some alternatives.
  • Pairing Criteria: Is the current system (high-low within brackets using high-low adjusted points) effective? Should opponent wins be used to pair debates? Should high-high rounds be more common? Should side constraints be ignored for undefeated teams when pairing the last prelim?
  • The Politics Disad: sweet or not so sweet? Should the aff be losing debates to the politics disad? Should negs be relying on it to construct their post-season strategies?
  • “The DA Turns The Case”: the last refuge of scoundrels? What can the aff do to protect themselves from “the low risk DA turns the case, I voted neg” decisions?
  • Conditionality Gone Wild: is each plank of a multi-plank counterplan conditional? Is it okay to kick independent planks? Whose burden is it to establish the meaning of “conditionality” (or, more generally, the disposition of the counterplan)?
  • “A2:” or “AT:” (or “They Say:”) as a label for blocks: which one is best? (Yes, we actually got into an argument about this.)

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips.

Season 1, Episode 10 — 2010-01-20

Topics discussed include: A Judging Hypothetical (from Rajesh Jegadeesh), Do Dropped Advantages Need To Be Explicitly Extended in the 2AC/1AR?, Rounds We Judged Together At The Glenbrooks, Non-Sensical Plan Writing and Plan-Inclusive Counterplans, Disclosure Norms Regarding New Plan Texts, Research Techniques (in regard to the Crowd-Sourcing Threads), Specific vs. General Critique Responses, Impact Turns Alongside Critiques As A Negative Strategy, and Switch-Side Debate and the Hicks and Greene Evidence.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips.

Season 1, Episode 9 — 2009-11-19

Topics discussed include pre-tournament preparation, politics research, file/update organization, 2AC strategies versus the politics disadvantage, impact turning politics, 1AR preparation strategies, adapting to unfamiliar judges, and a few other topics.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips.

Season 1, Episode 8 — 2009-11-12

This episode focuses on negative strategy and includes discussions of 1NC strategy, block division, prep time tactics, 2NR decision-making, 2NR strategy/execution, and several other topics.

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips.